Blogcritics: Comments on Bigots defend Thurmond, dis' daughter

Comment by Mac Diva

Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:37:11 EST

Undaunted, John Smith further proves he has nothing intelligent to say on the topic. Instead, I want to recommend a column Cole King wrote about the father and daughter last year. You may recall that famous 100th year birthday party. Well, Ms. Essie wasn't invited. But, even then, King understood what was going on.

The purpose of today's column is not to rehash the strong circumstantial evidence or to repeat interviews with knowledgeable sources about the long-standing and secret relationship between Thurmond and Washington. Thompson unearthed all that. But this annotation to Thurmond's life is worth highlighting, given that his fiery advocacy of segregation did more to stifle racial progress in America than the actions of any single human being in the postwar era until Alabama Gov. George Wallace came along. Strom Thurmond was among the vanguard of southerners who passed and enforced laws legalizing segregation and discrimination in virtually every aspect of daily life. And leading the list of noxious Jim Crow laws were statutes specifically put on the books outlawing and punishing interracial cohabitation and marriage. Thurmond was chief among those who believed and argued that drawing a tight color line and strictly segregating the races was the only way to prevent what Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi called "the mongrelization of the Nation." Thurmond was so motivated that he captured the Senate floor in 1957 and filibustered for 24 straight hours against a civil rights bill and "race-mixing." It was Thurmond who vowed to preserve the integrity of the white race and to keep the races distinct.

The full WaPo column is here.

Comment by John Smith

Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:30:05 EST

Undaunted, I've essayed a reply.

Comment by JR

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:06:15 EST

"What does this say about his constituents who kept him in his position?" It says they were more concerned with having political clout for their state than with the boorish behavior of their representative. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

Comment by Mac Diva

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:37:17 EST

Craig, the reaction at neo-Confederate forums is still developing. I summarized the stages it went through briefly at the bottom of the entry. When Trent Lott went woozy on BET last year, that was the last straw for some of his constituents. Others believed he was just 'playin' the Yankees for fools' and were able to hold on to their adulation of him through that circumlocution. As far as I know, he is still the official spokesman and recruitment voice for the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I would expect similar responses to Ol' Strom's outing. The SCV leadership tried to discredit the story. (You can read about that in my first entry on the Thurmond affair.) Joe Wilson hinted that it would be to the advantage of the Thurmond heir apparent not to comment on Ms. Essie. Junior has anyway. I don't know how that will play with the SCV, League of the South and Council of Conservative Citizens. They've all been very pro-Thurmond in the past, considering him one of the last of the loyal segregationists.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:17:17 EST

What does this say about his constituents who kept him in his position?

Comment by Dawn

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:58:52 EST

Why are we assuming the sex conduct was consensual? The "house masters" were constantly "taking advantage of the help" (read: raping them) and then beating them whenever they wanted. How does one reconcile within themselves that a person is beneath them in all the inalienable rights, but good enough to have sex with? Must be a gender thing. Thurmond can f-off into eternity and continue burning in hell, as he epitomizes what is wrong with the human race.

Comment by Chris Arabia

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:54:04 EST

Please feel free to point out Esmay's neo-confederate-itude (I know, not a word). Seriously, I am unaware of it at this point.

Comment by Mac Diva

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:42:56 EST

Don't worry, bhw. It is early in the morning here and I haven't had coffee yet. I apologize for mistakes in advance. I believe it rankles for people of color because white people (not all, obviously) can know us as individuals, even be related to us, and still dismiss us as children of a lesser God. Not even blinking in the process most of the time. A 'friend' once told me that as a woman and a person of color I am one someone it is okay to do anything to. I suspect a lot of people believe that, not just Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott. Esmay is one of the neo-Confederate type Southerners who was ecstatic when racists attacked me and my blog. Finally, someone was going to shut that uppity darkie up. Well, I don't think so. I will write a round-up featuring more reasonable reactions if I can squeeze it in somehow among Christmas shopping, complete housecleaning and being without my laptop. Lord, I hate parting with my TiBook, it is as if the darn 'puter is part of my body or something.

Comment by Chris Arabia

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:32:37 EST

It's just another layer. I dont know whats worse, working for something that sucks because you believe in it, or working for something that sucks because it's in fashion even if you don't believe in it. Of course, I'd also like to read more about Senator Robert Byrd's KKK career here at BC. Regardless, using dubious sources and lobbing unwarranted condemnations might work for some people (though only one way, I'm sure) but they weaken the argument and thus aid the opposing side.

Comment by bhw

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:23:12 EST

I'm not sure it comes across, but in my longer comment, I'm trying to say that I always figured Thurmond was a scumbag, so I'm not surprised or outraged by the recent revelations. A scumbag is as a scumbag does ....

Comment by bhw

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:21:22 EST

Man, does my spelling/typing suck on that last comment!

Comment by bhw

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:19:43 EST

I'm not surprised/shocked/dismayed by Thurmond's behavior because, frankly, he was behaving according to type. I'm not disappointed because I had no illusions of any better behavior from him. He assumed almost no fatherly responsibilities because he believed he had none. His mixed-race daughter wasn't a real child of his, just a biological accident that resulted from a [probably coerced] tryst with the household help. In my mind, any monies paid to her were hush monies. I save my dirision for his surviving, younger family members who still think it's appropriate to deny Thurmond's daughter's existence, and then once her heritages is proven, to worry about their white grandchildren. Oh, how it might destroy their little sense of themselves! How it might embarras them in school to know they have cousins who don't look like them! *puke*

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:06:46 EST

I dunno. It works for me.

Comment by Chris Arabia

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:00:30 EST

I pretty much concur with Eric. I would have liked to see a post here that focuses on well-known conservatives, instead of picking a couple of obscure conservative sites to cull the desired views. And the word "MORE"--shouldn't that be left-justified? Also, the effort to include Esmay detracts from the overall point--Esmay tries to provide some cultural history-background, and makes one curious assertion (about "good" treatment)--that hardly qualifies him for the Klan. I'd like to hear the other side of Esmay's argument (and whether he is wrong), not a mere accusation of racism. And perhaps there is a source for his "good" contention? His holding a possibly ill-conceived opinion is insufficient to justify the hate accusation.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:55:44 EST

I agree Eric. We shouldn't applaud a guy because he proved to be a half a human being. Whatever nice things he did do, it wasn't enough, and those nice things might be mitigated by not following through with all his responsibilities as a father.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:41:51 EST

MD, allow me to restate my position on this: an adult in a position of relative power taking advantage of a 15 or 16 year-old girl is appalling under any circumstances, it is also statutory rape - were she my daughter I would have done damage to his head regardless of law or custom. Add to this the raging hypocrisy of his stated racial position - segregation means segregation, twisted piece of shit cracker. And, finally, worst of all, denying his child, a person who is 1/2 him, the emotional, physical and social status of his paternity is a despicable outrage under any circumstances. Could he have treated her worse? It would appear. Does this mitigate the situation? In a way it makes it worse, because his behavior shows he had enough humanity to grasp his fundamental failure, yet he wasn't man enough to live up to his deepest responsibilities, opting for his own convenience, expediency, and social and professional comfort. May he rot.